CASEY SEAMAN
v.
ALLISON L. SEAMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court must comply with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(c)(2)(B) and cannot find a defendant in indirect civil contempt for failure to pay without the defendant present at the hearing to establish present ability to pay and willfulness.
[1] In an indirect civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay, the trial court must comply with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(c)(2)(B), which requires the def…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCasey Seaman was found in indirect civil contempt by the trial court for failure to pay. Seaman was not present at the contempt hearing.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willfulness Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASEY SEAMAN,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-2080
ALLISON L. SEAMAN,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 22, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Jennifer Bass, Judge.
Michael V. Laurato, of Austin & Laurato, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Cheri A. Russell, of Cheri A. Russell, P.A. Ocala, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Casey Seaman, appeals the trial court’s order finding him in indirect civil contempt, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court failed to comply with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(c)(2)(B). Appellant asserts that because he was not present at the contempt hearing, the trial court erred when it found that he had a present ability to pay and that his failure to pay was willful. We agree and note that Appellee properly concedes error on this point.
2
We therefore reverse the order finding Appellant in indirect civil contempt and remand for the trial court to consider Appellant’s present ability to pay and willfulness in compliance with the procedure set forth in rule 12.615(c)(2)(B).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COHEN, EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., concur.